Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner’s Note
For applicant’s benefit, portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
“The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v.Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) See MPEP 2123.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 recites “wherein the one or more satellites in the second constellation of satellites one of GEO satellites, MEO satellites, or LEO satellites” which is grammatically incorrect.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claim(s) are directed to a method and recite(s) judicial exceptions as explained in the Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis below. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application as explained in the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis below. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as explained in the Step 2B analysis below.
Independent claim(s) 1 and 32:
Claim 1:
A method for a navigation device, the method comprising: detecting, by the navigation device, errors in at least one of navigation measurements, navigation solutions, or navigation data, based on trusted navigation measurements.
Claim 32:
A system for navigation, the system comprising: a navigation device configured to detect errors in at least one of navigation measurements, navigation solutions, or navigation data, based on trusted navigation measurements.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 1 recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. Claim 32 recites a system, and therefore, is a machine/ manufacture. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis. Independent claim(s) 32 will not be evaluated separately because the claim(s) contain the same defects as those noted for claim 1 below.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes)?
Yes. Claim 1 recites the limitations of:
“detecting, by the navigation device, errors in at least one of navigation measurements, navigation solutions, or navigation data, based on trusted navigation measurements”.
The focus of the claim (i.e., detecting errors in at least one of navigation measurements, navigation solutions, or navigation data) is on selecting certain information and analyzing it. These observations or evaluations are acts that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion, and/or a general-purpose computer as indicated in Applicant’s disclosure. When given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the disclosure, the use of at least one of navigation measurements, navigation solutions, or navigation data is simply selection and mathematical manipulation of data. Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from §101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract idea. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351-52 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (a generically-recited analysis step is a mental process).
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Under the 2019 Guidance, concepts performed in the human mind, even with the aid of pen and paper, and concepts merely using a computer as a tool, fall within the “mental processes” grouping. Claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). Examples of claims that recite mental processes include:
• a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
• a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
The claim does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The recitation of the limitation(s) of “a navigation device” is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The limitation(s) of “a navigation device” represents no more than a generic device, and can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to mere physicality or tangibility. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
Additionally, the limitation(s) of “trusted navigation measurements” is also considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The limitation labels some measurements as trusted without any information and/or techniques on what makes them trusted, and therefore, is not a meaningful transformation into a practical application.
The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions. Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
Step 2 considers whether the claim provides limitations which amount to “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception. The claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mental process of claim 1. For example, the use of the “a navigation device” fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The recitation of the “a navigation device” is at a high level of generality and is just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more.
Similarly, the use of the “trusted navigation measurements” fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional in the field to gather data. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. Similarly, as explained with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the claim in this case specifies what information it is desirable to gather and analyze; but it does not include any requirement for performing the claimed function(s) by use of anything not entirely conventional and generic.
Therefore, the claim does not state an inventive concept. The limitation(s) are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually.
Applicant’s disclosure does not provide evidence that the additional element(s) recited in claim 1 (i.e., the claim element(s) in addition to the abstract idea) is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This issue is explained by the Federal Circuit, as follows:
It has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention “significantly more” than that ineligible concept. In Alice, the Supreme Court held that claims directed to a computer-implemented scheme for mitigating settlement risks claimed a patent-ineligible abstract idea. 134 S.Ct. at 2352, 2355—56. Some of the claims at issue covered computer systems configured to mitigate risks through various financial transactions. Id. After determining that those claims were directed to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, the Court considered whether the recitation of a generic computer added “significantly more” to the claims. Id. at 2357. Critically, the Court did not consider whether it was well-understood, routine, and conventional to execute the claimed intermediated settlement method on a generic computer. Instead, the Court only assessed whether the claim limitations other than the invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it was directed were well-understood, routine and conventional. Id. at 2359-60. BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (2018) (emphases added).
Therefore, independent claim(s) 1 and 32 are ineligible.
Dependent claim(s) 1-31, and 33-37 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent-eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Specifically, the claims only recite limitations further defining the mental process and recite further data gathering and the mathematical manipulation of the gathered data. These limitations are considered mental process steps and additional steps that amount to necessary data gathering or data output. These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on the claimed invention. As such, the additional elements individually and in combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Specifically:
Claim 2:
The method of claim 1, wherein the navigation measurements comprise at least one of Doppler measurements, pseudorange measurements, range measurements, or time of arrival (TOA) measurements.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the method of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from §101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract idea. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions. Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mental process of claim 1. That is, the claim fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. The limitation(s) are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, the claim does not state an inventive concept.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 2 is ineligible.
Claim 3/ Claim 33:
The method of claim 1, wherein the navigation measurements comprise at least one of unvalidated navigation measurements or validated navigation measurements.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 3 recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. Claim 33 recites a system, and therefore, is a machine/ manufacture. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis. Claim(s) 33 will not be evaluated separately because the claim(s) contain the same defects as those noted for claim 3 below.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the method of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 3 and 33 are ineligible.
Claim 4:
The method of claim 3, wherein at least one of the unvalidated navigation measurements or the validated navigation measurements are based on signals received from at least one of one or more satellites, one or more aircraft, one or more unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), one or more pseudo-satellites, one or more aerial balloons, or one or more terrestrial cellular towers.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the method of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and represent no more than merely an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The recitation is at a high level of generality of a data source. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 4 is ineligible.
Claim 5:
The method of claim 3, wherein the unvalidated navigation measurements are based on signals received from one or more satellites in a first constellation of satellites, and the validated navigation measurements are based on signals received from one or more satellites in a second constellation of satellites.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the method of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and represent no more than merely an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The recitation is at a high level of generality of a data source. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. Similarly, as explained with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the claim does not include any requirement for performing the claimed function(s) by use of anything not entirely conventional and generic.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 5 is ineligible.
Claim 6:
The method of claim 5, wherein the one or more satellites in the first constellation of satellites and the one or more satellites in the second constellation of satellites are within communication range of the navigation device at a same time.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the method of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from §101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract idea. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality. Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The recitation is at a high level of generality of a data source. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. Similarly, as explained with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the claim does not include any requirement for performing the claimed function(s) by use of anything not entirely conventional and generic. The limitation(s) are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, the claim does not state an inventive concept.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 6 is ineligible.
Claim 7:
The method of claim 5, wherein the one or more satellites in the first constellation of satellites are one of geosynchronous earth orbit (GEO) satellites, medium earth orbit (MEO) satellites, or low earth orbit (LEO) satellites, and wherein the one or more satellites in the second constellation of satellites one of GEO satellites, MEO satellites, or LEO satellites.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the method of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from §101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract idea. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and represent no more than merely an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The recitation is at a high level of generality of a data source. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. The limitation(s) are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, the claim does not state an inventive concept.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 7 is ineligible.
Claim 8:
The method of claim 3, wherein the unvalidated navigation measurements are based on signals received from one or more satellites within a same constellation of satellites.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the method of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and represent no more than merely an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The recitation is at a high level of generality of a data source. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. Similarly, as explained with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the claim does not include any requirement for performing the claimed function(s) by use of anything not entirely conventional and generic.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 8 is ineligible.
Claim 9/ Claim 34:
The method of claim 3, further comprising detecting, by the navigation device, the errors, based on a comparison of a first estimated navigation solution for the navigation device with a second estimated navigation solution for the navigation device.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 9 recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. Claim 34 recites a system, and therefore, is a machine/ manufacture. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis. Claim(s) 34 will not be evaluated separately because the claim(s) contain the same defects as those noted for claim 9 below.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the method of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 9 and 34 are ineligible.
Claim 10/ Claim 35:
The method of claim 9, wherein the first estimated navigation solution and the second estimated navigation solution each comprise at least one of a position, timing, velocity, or attitude of the navigation device.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 10 recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. Claim 35 recites a system, and therefore, is a machine/ manufacture. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis. Claim(s) 35 will not be evaluated separately because the claim(s) contain the same defects as those noted for claim 10 below.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the method of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 10 and 35 are ineligible.
Claim 11/ Claim 36:
The method of claim 9, wherein the first estimated navigation solution is based on a first set of measurements comprising the validated navigation measurements and the unvalidated navigation measurements.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. Claim 36 recites a system, and therefore, is a machine/ manufacture. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis. Claim(s) 36 will not be evaluated separately because the claim(s) contain the same defects as those noted for claim 11 below.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the method of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 11 and 36 are ineligible.
Claim 12/ Claim 37:
The method of claim 9, wherein the second estimated navigation solution is based on a second set of measurements comprising the unvalidated navigation measurements.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 12 recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. Claim 37 recites a system, and therefore, is a machine/ manufacture. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis. Claim(s) 37 will not be evaluated separately because the claim(s) contain the same defects as those noted for claim 12 below.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the method of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 12 and 37 ineligible.
Claim 13:
The method of claim 3, wherein the unvalidated navigation measurements are fully determined unvalidated navigation measurements, and the validated navigation measurements are underdetermined validated navigation measurements.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the method of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 13 is ineligible.
Claim 14:
The method of claim 13, wherein the unvalidated navigation measurements and the validated navigation measurements are based on signals synchronized to a same clock.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the method of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 14 is ineligible.
Claim 15:
The method of claim 13, wherein the unvalidated navigation measurements are based on signals synchronized to a first clock, and the validated navigation measurements are based on signals synchronized to a second clock.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the method of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 15 is ineligible.
Claim 16:
The method of claim 15, further comprising determining, by the navigation device, timing of the first clock based on the unvalidated navigation measurements.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the method of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 16 is ineligible.
Claim 17:
The method of claim 3, wherein the validated navigation measurements are fully determined validated navigation measurements with a high dilution of precision (DOP).
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the method of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 17 is ineligible.
Claim 18:
The method of claim 17, wherein the unvalidated navigation measurements and the validated navigation measurements are based on signals synchronized to a same clock.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the method of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 18 is ineligible.
Claim 19:
The method of claim 3, wherein the unvalidated navigation measurements are underdetermined unvalidated navigation measurements, and the validated navigation measurements are underdetermined validated navigation measurements.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the method of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 19 is ineligible.
Claim 20:
The method of claim 19, wherein the unvalidated navigation measurements and the validated navigation measurements are based on signals synchronized to a same clock.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the method of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 20 is ineligible.
Claim 21:
The method of claim 1, wherein a first portion of the navigation measurements are based on signals synchronized to a first clock, and a second portion of the navigation measurements are based on signals synchronized to a second clock.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the method of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 21 is ineligible.
Claim 22:
The method of claim 21, further comprising comparing, by the navigation device, the first portion of the navigation measurements that are based on the signals synchronized to the first clock with the second portion of the navigation measurements that are based on the signals synchronized to the second clock to determine a consistency with a known relative stability of the first clock and the second clock relative to each other.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the method of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 22 is ineligible.
Claim 23:
The method of claim 21, further comprising comparing, by the navigation device, the first portion of the navigation measurements that are based on the signals synchronized to the first clock with the second portion of the navigation measurements that are based on the signals synchronized to the second clock to determine a consistency with a known receiver acceleration based on a motion sensor.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the method of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and represent no more than merely an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a technological environment.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The recitation is at a high level of generality of a data source. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. Similarly, as explained with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the claim does not include any requirement for performing the claimed function(s) by use of anything not entirely conventional and generic.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 23 is ineligible.
Claim 24:
The method of claim 1, wherein the trusted navigation measurements comprise at least one of validated navigation measurements or local navigation measurements.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the method of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 24 is ineligible.
Claim 25:
The method of claim 24, wherein the local navigation measurements comprise at least one of inertial measurements or barometric pressure measurements.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the method of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 25 is ineligible.
Claim 26:
The method of claim 1, wherein the navigation solutions comprise at least one of unvalidated navigation solutions or validated navigation solutions.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the method of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 26 is ineligible.
Claim 27:
The method of claim 1, wherein the navigation solutions comprise at least one of position, velocity, or attitude of the navigation device.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the method of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 27 is ineligible.
Claim 28:
The method of claim 1, wherein the navigation data comprises at least one of unvalidated navigation data or validated navigation data.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the method of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 28 is ineligible.
Claim 29:
The method of claim 1, wherein the navigation data comprises at least one of satellite ephemeris data, satellite orbit data, or satellite clock data.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the method of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 29 is ineligible.
Claim 30:
The method of claim 1, wherein the errors indicate a spoofable subspace.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the method of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 30 is ineligible.
Claim 31:
The method of claim 30, wherein the spoofable subspace is one of a line or a surface.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the method of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 31 is ineligible.
Therefore, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, claims 1-31, and 33-37 are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-29 and 32-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Doty et al. (US 11,337,034 B1).
Regarding claim 1, DOTY discloses a method for a navigation device, the method comprising: detecting, by the navigation device (untrusted sensors 600 (such as GNSS receivers 602) [col. 7, lines 32-33]); (the processor 100 may continuously receive location data or measurements from one or more untrusted sensors 104 [col. 3, line 67-col.4, line 1]), errors in at least one of navigation measurements, navigation solutions, or navigation data, based on trusted navigation measurements (continuously validate current locations measurements from the untrusted sensors 600 against the trusted sensors 606 [col. 5, lines 40-43 & FIG. 4A-4B]). Examiner’s note: It is further noted that the limitation “at least one of navigation measurements, navigation solutions, or navigation data” is in alternative form (i.e., a choice between one of three alternatives, but not all); therefore, not all alternatives are required to be part of the claimed invention, and only one alternative “navigation solutions” was given patentable weight. In this case, “locations measurements” as cited in DOTY corresponds to the claimed “navigation solutions”.
Regarding claim 2, DOTY discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the navigation measurements comprise at least one of Doppler measurements, pseudorange measurements, range measurements, or time of arrival (TOA) measurements. Examiner’s note: The limitation(s) recited is not required to be part of the claimed invention. Independent parent claim 1 teaches alternative limitations, i.e., “at least one of navigation measurements, navigation solutions, or navigation data”. If a parent claim includes alternative limitations, and the reference teaches one of them, further limitation(s) to the other alternative(s) in dependent claim(s) are not required limitation(s). See Ex parte Werner, Appeal 2019-001448, Application No. 15/109,888, March 23, 2020, 15 pages. Here, DOTY discloses “locations measurements” corresponding to the claimed “navigation solutions”, as detailed in the rejection of claim 1. Claim 2 is based on another alternative/ other alternatives, i.e., “navigation measurements”.
Regarding claim 3, DOTY discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the navigation measurements comprise at least one of unvalidated navigation measurements or validated navigation measurements. Examiner’s note: The limitation(s) recited is not required to be part of the claimed invention. Independent parent claim 1 teaches alternative limitations, i.e., “at least one of navigation measurements, navigation solutions, or navigation data”. If a parent claim includes alternative limitations, and the reference teaches one of them, further limitation(s) to the other alternative(s) in dependent claim(s) are not required limitation(s). See Ex parte Werner, Appeal 2019-001448, Application No. 15/109,888, March 23, 2020, 15 pages. Here, DOTY discloses “locations measurements” corresponding to the claimed “navigation solutions”, as detailed in the rejection of claim 1. Claim 3 is based on another alternative/ other alternatives, i.e., “navigation measurements”.
Regarding claim 4, DOTY discloses the method of claim 3, wherein at least one of the unvalidated navigation measurements or the validated navigation measurements are based on signals received from at least one of one or more satellites, one or more aircraft, one or more unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), one or more pseudo-satellites, one or more aerial balloons, or one or more terrestrial cellular towers. Examiner’s note: The limitation(s) recited is not required to be part of the claimed invention. Independent parent claim 1 teaches alternative limitations, i.e., “at least one of navigation measurements, navigation solutions, or navigation data”. If a parent claim includes alternative limitations, and the reference teaches one of them, further limitation(s) to the other alternative(s) in dependent claim(s) are not required limitation(s). See Ex parte Werner, Appeal 2019-001448, Application No. 15/109,888, March 23, 2020, 15 pages. Here, DOTY discloses “locations measurements” corresponding to the claimed “navigation solutions”, as detailed in the rejection of claim 1. Claim 4 is based on another alternative/ other alternatives, i.e., “navigation measurements”.
Regarding claim 5, DOTY discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the unvalidated navigation measurements are based on signals received from one or more satellites in a first constellation of satellites, and the validated navigation measurements are based on signals received from one or more satellites in a second constellation of satellites. Examiner’s note: The limitation(s) recited is not required to be part of the claimed invention. Independent parent claim 1 teaches alternative limitations, i.e., “at least one of navigation measurements, navigation solutions, or navigation data”. If a parent claim includes alternative limitations, and the reference teaches one of them, further limitation(s) to the other alternative(s) in dependent claim(s) are not required limitation(s). See Ex parte Werner, Appeal 2019-001448, Application No. 15/109,888, March 23, 2020, 15 pages. Here, DOTY discloses “locations measurements” corresponding to the claimed “navigation solutions”, as detailed in the rejection of claim 1. Claim 5 is based on another alternative/ other alternatives, i.e., “navigation measurements”.
Regarding claim 6, DOTY discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the one or more satellites in the first constellation of satellites and the one or more satellites in the second constellation of satellites are within communication range of the navigation device at a same time. Examiner’s note: The limitation(s) recited is not required to be part of the claimed invention. Independent parent claim 1 teaches alternative limitations, i.e., “at least one of navigation measurements, navigation solutions, or navigation data”. If a parent claim includes alternative limitations, and the reference teaches one of them, further limitation(s) to the other alternative(s) in dependent claim(s) are not required limitation(s). See Ex parte Werner, Appeal 2019-001448, Application No. 15/109,888, March 23, 2020, 15 pages. Here, DOTY discloses “locations measurements” corresponding to the claimed “navigation solutions”, as detailed in the rejection of claim 1. Claim 6 is based on another alternative/ other alternatives, i.e., “navigation measurements”.
Regarding claim 7, DOTY discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the one or more satellites in the first constellation of satellites are one of geosynchronous earth orbit (GEO) satellites, medium earth orbit (MEO) satellites, or low earth orbit (LEO) satellites, and wherein the one or more satellites in the second constellation of satellites one of GEO satellites, MEO satellites, or LEO satellites. Examiner’s note: The limitation(s) recited is not required to be part of the claimed invention. Independent parent claim 1 teaches alternative limitations, i.e., “at least one of navigation measurements, navigation solutions, or navigation data”. If a parent claim includes alternative limitations, and the reference teaches one of them, further limitation(s) to the other alternative(s) in dependent claim(s) are not required limitation(s). See Ex parte Werner, Appeal 2019-001448, Application No. 15/109,888, March 23, 2020, 15 pages. Here, DOTY discloses “locations measurements” corresponding to the claimed “navigation solutions”, as detailed in the rejection of claim 1. Claim 7 is based on another alternative/ other alternatives, i.e., “navigation measurements”.
Regarding claim 8, DOTY discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the unvalidated navigation measurements are based on signals received from one or more satellites within a same constellation of satellites. Examiner’s note: The limitation(s) recited is not required to be part of the claimed invention. Independent parent claim 1 teaches alternative limitations, i.e., “at least one of navigation measurements, navigation solutions, or navigation data”. If a parent claim includes alternative limitations, and the reference teaches one of them, further limitation(s) to the other alternative(s) in dependent claim(s) are not required limitation(s). See Ex parte Werner, Appeal 2019-001448, Application No. 15/109,888, March 23, 2020, 15 pages. Here, DOTY discloses “locations measurements” corresponding to the claimed “navigation solutions”, as detailed in the rejection of claim 1. Claim 8 is based on another alternative/ other alternatives, i.e., “navigation measurements”.
Regarding claim 9, DOTY discloses the method of claim 3, further comprising detecting, by the navigation device, the errors, based on a comparison of a first estimated navigation solution for the navigation device with a second estimated navigation solution for the navigation device (the updated location is compared 310 to a current location derived from the untrusted location data [col. 5, lines 27-29 & FIG. 3]). Examiner’s note: It can be seen from the citation that “the updated location” corresponds to the claimed “a first estimated navigation solution”, and “a current location derived from the untrusted location data” corresponds to the claimed “a second estimated navigation solution”.
Regarding claim 10, DOTY discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the first estimated navigation solution and the second estimated navigation solution each comprise at least one of a position, timing, velocity, or attitude of the navigation device (the updated location is compared 310 to a current location derived from the untrusted location data [col. 5, lines 27-29 & FIG. 3], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 34). Examiner’s note: It is further noted that the limitation “at least one of a position, timing, velocity, or attitude” is in alternative form; therefore, only one alternative was given patentable weight. In this case, “the updated location” and “a current location” correspond to the claimed “position”. Furthermore, DOTY discloses that “location,” including an initial location and current location, may include any type of solution derived from sensor data as described herein, including but limited to position, velocity, acceleration, attitude, heading, and time [col. 3, lines 17-20].
Regarding claim 11, DOTY discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the first estimated navigation solution is based on a first set of measurements comprising the validated navigation measurements and the unvalidated navigation measurements (the initial location may be determined with reference to a GNSS system, then continuously updated with reference to one or more IMUs [col. 5, lines 24-26]). Examiner’s note: It can be seen from the citation that the updated location would be based on both GNSS (that is corresponding to the claimed “unvalidated navigation measurements”) and IMUs (that is corresponding to the claimed “validated navigation measurements”).
Regarding claim 12, DOTY discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the second estimated navigation solution is based on a second set of measurements comprising the unvalidated navigation measurements (a current location derived from the untrusted location data [col. 5, lines 27-29 & FIG. 3], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 34).
Regarding claim 13, DOTY discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the unvalidated navigation measurements are fully determined unvalidated navigation measurements, and the validated navigation measurements are underdetermined validated navigation measurements. Examiner’s note: The limitation(s) recited is not required to be part of the claimed invention. Independent parent claim 1 teaches alternative limitations, i.e., “at least one of navigation measurements, navigation solutions, or navigation data”. If a parent claim includes alternative limitations, and the reference teaches one of them, further limitation(s) to the other alternative(s) in dependent claim(s) are not required limitation(s). See Ex parte Werner, Appeal 2019-001448, Application No. 15/109,888, March 23, 2020, 15 pages. Here, DOTY discloses “locations measurements” corresponding to the claimed “navigation solutions”, as detailed in the rejection of claim 1. Claim 13 is based on another alternative/ other alternatives, i.e., “navigation measurements”.
Regarding claim 14, DOTY discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the unvalidated navigation measurements and the validated navigation measurements are based on signals synchronized to a same clock. Examiner’s note: The limitation(s) recited is not required to be part of the claimed invention. Independent parent claim 1 teaches alternative limitations, i.e., “at least one of navigation measurements, navigation solutions, or navigation data”. If a parent claim includes alternative limitations, and the reference teaches one of them, further limitation(s) to the other alternative(s) in dependent claim(s) are not required limitation(s). See Ex parte Werner, Appeal 2019-001448, Application No. 15/109,888, March 23, 2020, 15 pages. Here, DOTY discloses “locations measurements” corresponding to the claimed “navigation solutions”, as detailed in the rejection of claim 1. Claim 14 is based on another alternative/ other alternatives, i.e., “navigation measurements”.
Regarding claim 15, DOTY discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the unvalidated navigation measurements are based on signals synchronized to a first clock, and the validated navigation measurements are based on signals synchronized to a second clock. Examiner’s note: The limitation(s) recited is not required to be part of the claimed invention. Independent parent claim 1 teaches alternative limitations, i.e., “at least one of navigation measurements, navigation solutions, or navigation data”. If a parent claim includes alternative limitations, and the reference teaches one of them, further limitation(s) to the other alternative(s) in dependent claim(s) are not required limitation(s). See Ex parte Werner, Appeal 2019-001448, Application No. 15/109,888, March 23, 2020, 15 pages. Here, DOTY discloses “locations measurements” corresponding to the claimed “navigation solutions”, as detailed in the rejection of claim 1. Claim 15 is based on another alternative/ other alternatives, i.e., “navigation measurements”.
Regarding claim 16, DOTY discloses the method of claim 15, further comprising determining, by the navigation device, timing of the first clock based on the unvalidated navigation measurements. Examiner’s note: The limitation(s) recited is not required to be part of the claimed invention. Independent parent claim 1 teaches alternative limitations, i.e., “at least one of navigation measurements, navigation solutions, or navigation data”. If a parent claim includes alternative limitations, and the reference teaches one of them, further limitation(s) to the other alternative(s) in dependent claim(s) are not required limitation(s). See Ex parte Werner, Appeal 2019-001448, Application No. 15/109,888, March 23, 2020, 15 pages. Here, DOTY discloses “locations measurements” corresponding to the claimed “navigation solutions”, as detailed in the rejection of claim 1. Claim 16 is based on another alternative/ other alternatives, i.e., “navigation measurements”.
Regarding claim 17, DOTY discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the validated navigation measurements are fully determined validated navigation measurements with a high dilution of precision (DOP). Examiner’s note: The limitation(s) recited is not required to be part of the claimed invention. Independent parent claim 1 teaches alternative limitations, i.e., “at least one of navigation measurements, navigation solutions, or navigation data”. If a parent claim includes alternative limitations, and the reference teaches one of them, further limitation(s) to the other alternative(s) in dependent claim(s) are not required limitation(s). See Ex parte Werner, Appeal 2019-001448, Application No. 15/109,888, March 23, 2020, 15 pages. Here, DOTY discloses “locations measurements” corresponding to the claimed “navigation solutions”, as detailed in the rejection of claim 1. Claim 17 is based on another alternative/ other alternatives, i.e., “navigation measurements”.
Regarding claim 18, DOTY discloses the method of claim 17, wherein the unvalidated navigation measurements and the validated navigation measurements are based on signals synchronized to a same clock. Examiner’s note: The limitation(s) recited is not required to be part of the claimed invention. Independent parent claim 1 teaches alternative limitations, i.e., “at least one of navigation measurements, navigation solutions, or navigation data”. If a parent claim includes alternative limitations, and the reference teaches one of them, further limitation(s) to the other alternative(s) in dependent claim(s) are not required limitation(s). See Ex parte Werner, Appeal 2019-001448, Application No. 15/109,888, March 23, 2020, 15 pages. Here, DOTY discloses “locations measurements” corresponding to the claimed “navigation solutions”, as detailed in the rejection of claim 1. Claim 18 is based on another alternative/ other alternatives, i.e., “navigation measurements”.
Regarding claim 19, DOTY discloses the method of claim 3, wherein the unvalidated navigation measurements are underdetermined unvalidated navigation measurements, and the validated navigation measurements are underdetermined validated navigation measurements. Examiner’s note: The limitation(s) recited is not required to be part of the claimed invention. Independent parent claim 1 teaches alternative limitations, i.e., “at least one of navigation measurements, navigation solutions, or navigation data”. If a parent claim includes alternative limitations, and the reference teaches one of them, further limitation(s) to the other alternative(s) in dependent claim(s) are not required limitation(s). See Ex parte Werner, Appeal 2019-001448, Application No. 15/109,888, March 23, 2020, 15 pages. Here, DOTY discloses “locations measurements” corresponding to the claimed “navigation solutions”, as detailed in the rejection of claim 1. Claim 19 is based on another alternative/ other alternatives, i.e., “navigation measurements”.
Regarding claim 20, DOTY discloses the method of claim 19, wherein the unvalidated navigation measurements and the validated navigation measurements are based on signals synchronized to a same clock. Examiner’s note: The limitation(s) recited is not required to be part of the claimed invention. Independent parent claim 1 teaches alternative limitations, i.e., “at least one of navigation measurements, navigation solutions, or navigation data”. If a parent claim includes alternative limitations, and the reference teaches one of them, further limitation(s) to the other alternative(s) in dependent claim(s) are not required limitation(s). See Ex parte Werner, Appeal 2019-001448, Application No. 15/109,888, March 23, 2020, 15 pages. Here, DOTY discloses “locations measurements” corresponding to the claimed “navigation solutions”, as detailed in the rejection of claim 1. Claim 20 is based on another alternative/ other alternatives, i.e., “navigation measurements”.
Regarding claim 21, DOTY discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a first portion of the navigation measurements are based on signals synchronized to a first clock, and a second portion of the navigation measurements are based on signals synchronized to a second clock. Examiner’s note: The limitation(s) recited is not required to be part of the claimed invention. Independent parent claim 1 teaches alternative limitations, i.e., “at least one of navigation measurements, navigation solutions, or navigation data”. If a parent claim includes alternative limitations, and the reference teaches one of them, further limitation(s) to the other alternative(s) in dependent claim(s) are not required limitation(s). See Ex parte Werner, Appeal 2019-001448, Application No. 15/109,888, March 23, 2020, 15 pages. Here, DOTY discloses “locations measurements” corresponding to the claimed “navigation solutions”, as detailed in the rejection of claim 1. Claim 21 is based on another alternative/ other alternatives, i.e., “navigation measurements”.
Regarding claim 22, DOTY discloses the method of claim 21, further comprising comparing, by the navigation device, the first portion of the navigation measurements that are based on the signals synchronized to the first clock with the second portion of the navigation measurements that are based on the signals synchronized to the second clock to determine a consistency with a known relative stability of the first clock and the second clock relative to each other. Examiner’s note: The limitation(s) recited is not required to be part of the claimed invention. Independent parent claim 1 teaches alternative limitations, i.e., “at least one of navigation measurements, navigation solutions, or navigation data”. If a parent claim includes alternative limitations, and the reference teaches one of them, further limitation(s) to the other alternative(s) in dependent claim(s) are not required limitation(s). See Ex parte Werner, Appeal 2019-001448, Application No. 15/109,888, March 23, 2020, 15 pages. Here, DOTY discloses “locations measurements” corresponding to the claimed “navigation solutions”, as detailed in the rejection of claim 1. Claim 22 is based on another alternative/ other alternatives, i.e., “navigation measurements”.
Regarding claim 23, DOTY discloses the method of claim 21, further comprising comparing, by the navigation device, the first portion of the navigation measurements that are based on the signals synchronized to the first clock with the second portion of the navigation measurements that are based on the signals synchronized to the second clock to determine a consistency with a known receiver acceleration based on a motion sensor. Examiner’s note: The limitation(s) recited is not required to be part of the claimed invention. Independent parent claim 1 teaches alternative limitations, i.e., “at least one of navigation measurements, navigation solutions, or navigation data”. If a parent claim includes alternative limitations, and the reference teaches one of them, further limitation(s) to the other alternative(s) in dependent claim(s) are not required limitation(s). See Ex parte Werner, Appeal 2019-001448, Application No. 15/109,888, March 23, 2020, 15 pages. Here, DOTY discloses “locations measurements” corresponding to the claimed “navigation solutions”, as detailed in the rejection of claim 1. Claim 23 is based on another alternative/ other alternatives, i.e., “navigation measurements”.
Regarding claim 24, DOTY discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the trusted navigation measurements comprise at least one of validated navigation measurements or local navigation measurements (the system includes an independent process 518 that only utilizes trusted sensors 506 and therefore is not impacted by any fault or erroneous data from the untrusted sensors 500. For example, an inertial reference system may provide a location measurement purely from IMUs 510 [col. 6, lines 22-24]). Examiner’s note: It is further noted that the limitation “at least one of validated navigation measurements or local navigation measurements” is in alternative form; therefore, only one alternative was given patentable weight. In this case, “location measurement purely from IMUs 510” as cited in DOTY corresponds to the claimed “local navigation measurements”.
Regarding claim 25, DOTY discloses the method of claim 24, wherein the local navigation measurements comprise at least one of inertial measurements or barometric pressure measurements (trusted sensors 606 (such as barometers 608, IMUs 610, system clocks 612, wheel sensors 614) [col. 7, lines 34-35]).
Regarding claim 26, DOTY discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the navigation solutions comprise at least one of unvalidated navigation solutions or validated navigation solutions (continuously validate current locations measurements from the untrusted sensors 600 against the trusted sensors 606 [col. 5, lines 40-43 & FIG. 4A-4B], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1). Examiner’s note: It is further noted that the limitation “at least one of unvalidated navigation solutions or validated navigation solutions” is in alternative form; therefore, only one alternative was given patentable weight. In this case, “current locations measurements from the untrusted sensors 600” as cited in DOTY corresponds to the claimed “unvalidated navigation solutions”.
Regarding claim 27, DOTY discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the navigation solutions comprise at least one of position, velocity, or attitude of the navigation device (the updated location is compared 310 to a current location derived from the untrusted location data [col. 5, lines 27-29 & FIG. 3], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 34). Examiner’s note: It is further noted that the limitation “at least one of a position, timing, velocity, or attitude” is in alternative form; therefore, only one alternative was given patentable weight. In this case, “the updated location” and “a current location” correspond to the claimed “position”. Furthermore, DOTY discloses that “location,” including an initial location and current location, may include any type of solution derived from sensor data as described herein, including but limited to position, velocity, acceleration, attitude, heading, and time [col. 3, lines 17-20].
Regarding claim 28, DOTY discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the navigation data comprises at least one of unvalidated navigation data or validated navigation data. Examiner’s note: The limitation(s) recited is not required to be part of the claimed invention. Independent parent claim 1 teaches alternative limitations, i.e., “at least one of navigation measurements, navigation solutions, or navigation data”. If a parent claim includes alternative limitations, and the reference teaches one of them, further limitation(s) to the other alternative(s) in dependent claim(s) are not required limitation(s). See Ex parte Werner, Appeal 2019-001448, Application No. 15/109,888, March 23, 2020, 15 pages. Here, DOTY discloses “locations measurements” corresponding to the claimed “navigation solutions”, as detailed in the rejection of claim 1. Claim 28 is based on another alternative/ other alternatives, i.e., “navigation data”.
Regarding claim 29, DOTY discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the navigation data comprises at least one of satellite ephemeris data, satellite orbit data, or satellite clock data. Examiner’s note: The limitation(s) recited is not required to be part of the claimed invention. Independent parent claim 1 teaches alternative limitations, i.e., “at least one of navigation measurements, navigation solutions, or navigation data”. If a parent claim includes alternative limitations, and the reference teaches one of them, further limitation(s) to the other alternative(s) in dependent claim(s) are not required limitation(s). See Ex parte Werner, Appeal 2019-001448, Application No. 15/109,888, March 23, 2020, 15 pages. Here, DOTY discloses “locations measurements” corresponding to the claimed “navigation solutions”, as detailed in the rejection of claim 1. Claim 29 is based on another alternative/ other alternatives, i.e., “navigation data”.
Regarding claim 32, DOTY discloses a system for navigation, the system comprising: a navigation device (untrusted sensors 600 (such as GNSS receivers 602) [col. 7, lines 32-33]); (the processor 100 may continuously receive location data or measurements from one or more untrusted sensors 104 [col. 3, line 67-col.4, line 1]) configured to detect errors in at least one of navigation measurements, navigation solutions, or navigation data, based on trusted navigation measurements (continuously validate current locations measurements from the untrusted sensors 600 against the trusted sensors 606 [col. 5, lines 40-43 & FIG. 4A-4B]). Examiner’s note: It is further noted that the limitation “at least one of navigation measurements, navigation solutions, or navigation data” is in alternative form (i.e., a choice between one of three alternatives, but not all); therefore, not all alternatives are required to be part of the claimed invention, and only one alternative “navigation solutions” was given patentable weight. In this case, “locations measurements” as cited in DOTY corresponds to the claimed “navigation solutions”.
Regarding claim 33, DOTY discloses the system of claim 32, wherein the navigation measurements comprise at least one of unvalidated navigation measurements or validated navigation measurements. Examiner’s note: The limitation(s) recited is not required to be part of the claimed invention. Independent parent claim 32 teaches alternative limitations, i.e., “at least one of navigation measurements, navigation solutions, or navigation data”. If a parent claim includes alternative limitations, and the reference teaches one of them, further limitation(s) to the other alternative(s) in dependent claim(s) are not required limitation(s). See Ex parte Werner, Appeal 2019-001448, Application No. 15/109,888, March 23, 2020, 15 pages. Here, DOTY discloses “locations measurements” corresponding to the claimed “navigation solutions”, as detailed in the rejection of claim 32. Claim 33 is based on another alternative/ other alternatives, i.e., “navigation measurements”.
Regarding claim 34, DOTY discloses the system of claim 33, wherein the navigation device is further configured to detect the errors, based on a comparison of a first estimated navigation solution for the navigation device with a second estimated navigation solution for the navigation device (the updated location is compared 310 to a current location derived from the untrusted location data [col. 5, lines 27-29 & FIG. 3]). Examiner’s note: It can be seen from the citation that “the updated location” corresponds to the claimed “a first estimated navigation solution”, and “a current location derived from the untrusted location data” corresponds to the claimed “a second estimated navigation solution”.
Regarding claim 35, DOTY discloses the method of claim 34, wherein the first estimated navigation solution and the second estimated navigation solution each comprise at least one of a position, timing, velocity, or attitude of the navigation device (the updated location is compared 310 to a current location derived from the untrusted location data [col. 5, lines 27-29 & FIG. 3], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 34). Examiner’s note: It is further noted that the limitation “at least one of a position, timing, velocity, or attitude” is in alternative form; therefore, only one alternative was given patentable weight. In this case, “the updated location” and “a current location” correspond to the claimed “position”.
Regarding claim 36, DOTY discloses the method of claim 34, wherein the first estimated navigation solution is based on a first set of measurements comprising the validated navigation measurements and the unvalidated navigation measurements (the initial location may be determined with reference to a GNSS system, then continuously updated with reference to one or more IMUs [col. 5, lines 24-26]). Examiner’s note: It can be seen from the citation that the updated location would be based on both GNSS (that is corresponding to the claimed “unvalidated navigation measurements”) and IMUs (that is corresponding to the claimed “validated navigation measurements”).
Regarding claim 37, DOTY discloses the method of claim 34, wherein the second estimated navigation solution is based on a second set of measurements comprising the unvalidated navigation measurements (a current location derived from the untrusted location data [col. 5, lines 27-29 & FIG. 3], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 34).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 30-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DOTY, in view of Tuck et al. (US 2022/0221587 A1 “TUCK”).
Regarding claim 30, DOTY discloses (Examiner’s note: What DOTY does not disclose is ) the method of claim 1,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, TUCK relates to determining a boundary of a spoofing region identifying spoofed satellite signals. Specifically, TUCK teaches that FIG. 2B is a diagram of an overhead view of a portion of street system 250, illustrating how a spoofer may impact a vehicle travelling on a road system. The path of the vehicle is shown as it entered an area 260 with a spoofer transmitting a spoofed GNSS signal. The spoofed GNSS signal provides information indicating that the vehicle is actually in the spoofed false zone 270. Thus, as the vehicle entered the area covered by the spoofer, its GNSS receiver reported locations in the spoofed false zone [0059].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of DOTY to include the teachings of TUCK, because doing so would enable the system to detect potential GNSS spoofing and develop maps identifying regions in which spoofing has been detected, thereby altering behavior of the GNSS receiver when it detects it is nearing a spoofing region, or that the output of the GNSS receiver may be ignored and alternate positioning technique may be used [0033], as recognized by TUCK. In addition, both of the prior art references, DOTY and TUCK, teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, that is, compensating for false satellite signals.
Regarding claim 31, DOTY/ TUCK discloses the method of claim 30, wherein the spoofable subspace is one of a line or a surface (FIG. 2B is a diagram of an overhead view of a portion of street system 250, illustrating how a spoofer may impact a vehicle travelling on a road system. The path of the vehicle is shown as it entered an area 260 with a spoofer transmitting a spoofed GNSS signal. The spoofed GNSS signal provides information indicating that the vehicle is actually in the spoofed false zone 270. Thus, as the vehicle entered the area covered by the spoofer, its GNSS receiver reported locations in the spoofed false zone [TUCK 0059], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 30). Examiner’s note: It can be seen from, for example, FIG. 2B that at least spoofed false zone 270 is a surface.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Achanta (US 2017/0227651 A1) is considered pertinent art for the disclosure overall, and in particular the details of detecting manipulation of GNSS signals using a second time source. If two or more GNSS constellation signals are being detected, the phase error between the GNSS constellation signals may be monitored. When the phase error drifts, then manipulation is determined. The integrity of a GNSS constellation signal may be monitored using an internal time source such as a crystal oscillator by monitoring a slope of the free running counter at the detected rising edges of a pulse-per-second signal from the GNSS constellation.
Vanderwerf (US 2014/0074397 A1) is considered pertinent art for the disclosure overall, and in particular the details of providing integrity for a hybrid navigation system using a Kalman filter. The method includes determining a main navigation solution for one or more of roll, pitch, platform heading, or true heading for the vehicle using signals from a plurality of GNSS satellites and inertial measurements.
Shiina et al. (US 2018/0246216 A1) is considered pertinent art for the disclosure of: The GPS receiver 10 receives satellite signals transmitted from at least one GPS satellite 2 and generates 1PPS (1 Pulse Per Second) as a reference signal on the basis of orbit information and time information included in the received satellite signals and position information of a reception point set by the processor 20 [0050].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAILEY R LE whose telephone number is (571)272-4910. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, WILLIAM J KELLEHER can be reached at (571) 272-7753. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Hailey R Le/Examiner, Art Unit 3648 January 7, 2026